Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 35, subsection (7), line 29, after "firm" where it firstly occurs to insert "or associated or related undertaking".
Amendments Nos. 40 to 43, inclusive, will prohibit the winding up or dissolution of an associated or related undertaking of an approved stock exchange or authorised member firm when a direction by the Central Bank is in force unless the prior sanction of the High Court has been obtained.
Section 29 allows the Central Bank to issue directions to stock exchanges and the member firms as well as associated and related undertakings. Subsection (7) prohibits winding up or dissolution proceedings in respect of a stock exchange or member firm which is the subject of a direction unless High Court consent has been obtained. However, as drafted, it does not prohibit such proceedings in respect of associated or related undertakings and clearly the prohibition on winding up proceedings should also apply to associated or related undertakings and these amendments provide accordingly.
As regards the Central Bank and the High Court, I am concerned about the final arbiter because somebody could use the High Court as a mechanism to protect himself against the rigours which the competent authority might want to impose in that it might take some time to make a judgment in a case.
The Central Bank is the determining body. There must be a court of appeal and the High Court is the obvious mechanism to be the final arbiter on whether a person receives a sanction, approval or an imprimatur or whether something is wound up or dissolved. Inevitably, there will be a time lag if we allow the appeal mechanism to come into play.
Is there a minimum set of circumstances which must prevail before one could go to the High Court? I do not object to the involvement of the High Court because natural justice would dictate that if somebody finds himself in difficulty and dislikes the approach of the competent authority he can go straight to the High Court where the matter becomes sub judice and is out of the domain of the Central Bank.
The Central Bank could, if necessary, move in and look for a speedy hearing and resolution. It could put the case that the matter was urgent and required early determination. The court would be compliant and accommodating in such circumstances.
It would need to be because a person should not be encouraged to go to the High Court on spurious grounds. The Central Bank as the competent authority dealing with the matter would need to be able to act. I am not saying these things will happen and I do not mean to malign those involved because I have no doubt they have impeccable credentials. I am trying to be the devil's advocate here.
It is a valid point. It is envisaged that one would seek the permission of the court for an early hearing to resolve the matter.
Has the Minister defined associated or related undertakings?
Yes, it is defined in the definitions section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 35, subsection (7), line 29, after "firm" where it secondly occurs to insert "or associated or related undertaking".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 35, subsection (7), line 33, after "firm" to insert "or associated or related undertaking".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 35, subsection (7), line 35, after "firm" to insert "or associated or related undertaking".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.